San Jose State University

SJSU ScholarWorks

Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research

Spring 2011

Social Support and Gender Effects on Academic Confidence in

Foster Youth
Carolyn Suzanne Gillard
San Jose State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses

Recommended Citation
Gillard, Carolyn Suzanne, "Social Support and Gender Effects on Academic Confidence in Foster Youth"
(2011). Master's Theses. 3929.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.vypx-hx3k
https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/3929

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU
ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU
ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@sjsu.edu.
 SOCIAL SUPPORT AND GENDER EFFECTS
ON ACADEMIC CONFIDENCE IN FOSTER YOUTH

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of Psychology

San Jose State University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

by

Carolyn S. Gillard

May 2011
 © 2011

Carolyn S. Gillard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled

SOCIAL SUPPORT AND GENDER EFFECTS

ON ACADEMIC CONFIDENCE IN FOSTER YOUTH

by

Carolyn Suzanne Gillard

APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY

May 2011

Dr. Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland Department of Psychology

Dr. Mildred Alvarez Department of Psychology

Dr. Cary Feria Department of Psychology

 ABSTRACT

SOCIAL SUPPORT AND GENDER EFFECTS

ON ACADEMIC CONFIDENCE IN FOSTER YOUTH

by Carolyn S. Gillard

Finding the predictors for academic success is critical for foster youth to become

productive citizens as adults. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of

social support in the academic confidence of transitional foster youth. Because the

literature suggests men and women benefit from social support differentially, I also

examined gender as the moderating variable for social support and academic confidence.

A sample of 82 foster youth (15-18 years old) from San Joaquin County’s Human Service

Agency volunteered to participate. Participants were given the Student Perceived

Availability of Social Support Questionnaire (SPASSQ) to assess their perceptions of the

available social support from foster family, teachers, and peers. The Academic Efficacy

Scale (AES) and the School Investment Inventory (SII) were used to assess academic

confidence. Hierarchical and linear regression analyses and independent t-tests were

conducted to examine the relationship between social support and academic confidence

with gender as the moderating variable. Results were that overall social support

positively predicted academic confidence, and this was particularly true for females when

using AES. More specifically, the social support provided by foster parents was a strong

predictor of academic confidence for girls. Teacher and peer support also had a positive

impact on foster youths’ academic confidence. These data support the hypotheses that

social support positively predicts academic confidence and that female foster youth

benefit more from social support.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First I would like to take the time to thank God for blessing me with passion to

assist foster youth through my personal experiences and my academic endeavors. I

would like to thank my long-time mentor and thesis advisor, Dr. Cheryl Chancellor-

Freeland, for her unconditional support, guidance, and encouragement throughout my

undergraduate and graduate studies. She has been very influential and motivating

throughout my thesis process, and I am so grateful to have her as my mentor/advisor.

When I attempted to stray away from this commitment to complete my thesis due to life’s

unexpected obstacles and successes, Dr. Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland always managed to

keep me focused on the bigger picture, which I can see so much clearer now. I would

also like to thank Dr. Mildred Alvarez and Dr. Cary Feria for serving on my thesis

committee. Special thanks to my colleagues, Shelina Miranda and Dong Nguyen, who

have been my immediate support system from the beginning of my thesis. I also want to

thank Barbara Hughes, Tamika Fitch, Gabriel Kallstrom, Kia White, and Michael Suarez

for assisting me in numerous ways throughout my graduate studies. Finally, I want to

thank my mother Susie Anne Taylor, God-sister Omega Miller, and my best friends

Traneil Surrell-Missouri and Chaka Fudge for encouraging and believing in me whenever

I would doubt myself. Without the help of all these people, I never would have finished

my thesis. Thank you everyone with all my heart, for all your support.

v
 Table of Contents

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Transitioning Foster Youth ............................................................................................. 2
Support, Resiliency, and Academic Challenges of Foster Youth ................................... 5
Social Support Solution .................................................................................................. 7
Gender Considerations .................................................................................................... 9
Foster Youth, Social Support, and Academic Success ................................................. 10
Purpose.......................................................................................................................... 11

Methods............................................................................................................................. 13
Participants .................................................................................................................... 13
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 13
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 14
Social Support ............................................................................................................... 14
Academic Confidence ................................................................................................... 15

Results ............................................................................................................................... 17
Academic Confidence and Self-Reported Grades ........................................................ 17
Social Support and Academic Confidence ................................................................... 20
Sources of Social Support ............................................................................................. 21
Social Support Gender Differences and Academic Confidence ................................... 23
Sources of Social Support, Gender, and Academic Confidence ................................... 25

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 27
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 31
Implications for Further Research ................................................................................ 32

References ......................................................................................................................... 34

Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 40
Appendix A: Permission Letter .................................................................................... 40
Appendix B: Assent Form for Child Participants ......................................................... 41
Appendix C: Questionnaire........................................................................................... 43

vi
 List of Tables

Table 1. Average Social Support for Overall, Foster Parent, Teacher, and Peer Social
Support (N = 82). .............................................................................................................. 22

Table 2. Linear Regression Analyses of Overall Social Support, Foster Parent Social
Support, Teacher Social Support, and Peer Social Support in Predicting Academic
Efficacy (N = 82) .............................................................................................................. 23

vii
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Scatterplot for the Negative Correlation Between Self-Reported Grades and
Academic Efficacy (r = -0.54, p < 0.01**). ...................................................................... 19

Figure 2. Overall Social Support Significantly Predicts Academic Efficacy for

Females Compared to Male Foster Youth (p < 0.001). .................................................... 24

Figure 3. Foster Parent Social Support Significantly Predicts Academic Efficacy for
Females Compared to Male Foster Youth (p < 0 .01*). ................................................... 26

viii
 Introduction

In California alone, there are over 100,000 foster children. In the United States,

over half a million children are placed in foster care, with 20,000 foster youth maturing

out of the foster care system annually (Lemon, Hines, & Merdinger, 2005; Kelly, 2000).

The question for many is, “what next?” In other words, what happens to the foster youth

after they exit the system without a safety net? Adolescents who mature out of foster

care are expected to automatically, often without preparation, survive independently as

adults at 18 years of age. This is substantially younger than the reported average for non-

foster youth (Geenen & Powers, 2007; Kools, 1997), who often remain with their parents

into their early thirties, giving them sufficient time to emerge into adulthood with ease

(Arnett, 2000; Furstenberg, Rumbaut, & Settersten, 2005).

Non-foster youth are typically given the needed time to explore college education

and future goals (Gitelson & McDermott, 2006); however, foster youth often have neither

a clear path to higher education nor advanced skill training (Hyde & Kammerer, 2009).

As a consequence, the outcomes for foster youth later in adulthood may be dire, and this

topic has been the focus of growing interest among social scientists, clinicians, and the

public at large. The purpose of this study was to examine key factors leading to

academic success in transitional foster youth. The specific aim was to investigate the role

of social support in academic confidence as a predictor for academic success. I also

sought to determine whether gender plays a role in this relationship.

1
Transitioning Foster Youth

According to Zetlin, Weinberg, and Kimm (2005), within 12 to18 months after

maturing out of foster care, 25% of males become incarcerated, 60% of females

experience pregnancy, and 38% of those who become pregnant carry the pregnancy to

term. Research also shows that 45% of the transitioning foster youth are at risk for being

homeless within a year of emancipation, 30% are substance abusers, and 50% are likely

to have experienced domestic violence (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1999; McMillian &

Tucker, 1999; Zetlin, Weinberg, & Kimm, 2003). Furthermore, only 54% of foster youth

graduate from high school, a relatively low figure compared to the 91% of all non-foster

youth who do graduate. It is noteworthy that early academic failure may well predict

subsequent negative outcomes such as those described above (Rosenfeld & Richman,

2003; Zetlin, Weinberg, & Kimm, 2004).

Such statistics have led to the perception that foster youth are mentally ill or

promiscuous or that they are “throwaways” (Zetlin et al., 2003). These negative societal

descriptions affect foster adolescents’ self-concept and self-esteem as well as their

academic confidence and may drive a downward spiral toward a self-fulfilling prophecy

(Zetlin et al., 2005). Although a portion of the general population has reportedly blamed

foster youth themselves for their own unfortunate outcomes (Zetlin et al., 2004), research

suggests that such conclusions are far too simplistic. Issues related to the stability and

quality of the placement in a foster family may moderate the support of foster youth and

affect their outcomes. Critical evaluation of the literature reveals that environmental

factors, such as the stability of placement and the support and guidance given to foster

2
youth by their families and other relevant members of the foster care system, greatly

impact the academic and overall outcomes of foster youth (Hass & Graydon, 2009;

Rodgers, 2007).

Statistics reveal that 75% of children placed with foster families have foster

parents with unrealistic expectations and who are unable to appropriately tolerate or

handle foster adolescents’ difficult behaviors. This has resulted in many jeopardized and

unstable foster care placements (Mendez, 2008; U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 2001; Zetlin et al., 2005). Unstable placements are partly due to the failure of

foster care agencies to provide the needed emotional, psychological, financial, social, and

community support to foster parents after children have been placed (Brown & Bednar,

2006). The outcomes are not only weak bonding between foster family members, but

also often inadequate informal and formal educational training for youth.

The fundamental factors that contribute to poor academic success of foster youth

are multiple school transfers and foster home placements and the weak coordinated

communication among key people who are either directly or indirectly responsible for the

youth’s education (e.g., foster parents, foster care agencies, and school personnel)

(Vacca, 2006). Lack of communication among those meant to assist foster youth

significantly limits their ability to provide youth with the needed emotional support and

guidance. This is particularly true for foster youth in need of special education and

remedial reading services (Vacca, 2008). Furthermore, the general instability of foster

placement causes disruption in the foster parents’ ability to effectively represent the

educational interests of their foster children (Vacca, 2008).

3
 Foster children are also reported to be under supported in their general academic

pursuits by those close to them. This is in part due to the demands placed on those who

work with foster youth (i.e., social workers), who often have large case loads and limited

time to devote to each case (Rosenfeld & Richman, 2003). Moreover, the primary

responsibility of many foster care agencies is to protect abused and/or neglected children

by placing them in secure environments. The issue of promoting academic success is

secondary at best.

It is understandable how social workers can be diverted from addressing the

educational needs of foster children (Rosenfeld & Richman, 2003). However, foster

youth may be at risk of failure in school simply because the agencies that serve them do

not underscore the importance of education when making placement decisions (Kools,

1999). Foster parents are required to provide a safe environment and to satisfy the basic

needs of foster youth, but they are not mandated to monitor and/or to become actively

involved in their foster children’s academic activities (Kools, 1999; Zetlin et al., 2004).

In other words, foster parents are not required to look after foster children’s study habits

to make sure assignments are completed (Rosenfeld & Richman, 2003). When foster

care providers fail to promote, support, and advocate for foster adolescents’ academic

endeavors, foster youth lack the social support needed to instill academic confidence,

which is a robust predictor for academic success (Kools, 1999). Indeed, the lack of

support (emotional and educational) becomes a salient problem when considering its role

in academic success and in the success of future endeavors (Kortering & Brazeil, 2008).

4
Support, Resiliency, and Academic Challenges of Foster Youth

Support in the form of positive reinforcement, such as, praise for positive

behavior and consequences when redirection fails, are strong predictors of resiliency in

foster youth (Rodgers, 2007). According to Hass and Graydon’s (2009) retrospective

study, resiliency depends on exposure to problem-solving through modeling and through

instruction from authority figures. Researchers have also reported that some foster youth

may be more resilient because their easy-going temperaments make it easier to engage

adults who are willing to provide social support. However, even when temperaments are

defined as “difficult”, additional guidance and social support are reported to promote

successful problem-solving skills (Hass & Graydon, 2009).

Successful problem-solving obviously translates well to academic achievement,

and this plays a critical role in the economic well-being of youth later in adulthood. In

other words, school completion and a strong educational foundation lead to access to

productive employment, livable wages, and opportunities for higher education (Kortering

& Brazeil, 2008). The first learning experience for children is at home, through informal

family instruction (Hass & Graydon, 2009). Children in foster care typically don’t have

this early training. They are often abused and neglected by their families, and they may

be at a particular disadvantage when entering school because they do not benefit from

adequate amounts of home education, such as the problem-solving skills mentioned

above (Simms, Dubowitz, & Szilagyi, 2000). Foster children are often behind from the

outset, and their early lag in academic achievement may become exacerbated later in life,

5
further widening the gap in academic success between them and their non-foster youth

counterparts (Zetlin et al., 2004).

Foster youth often experience significant academic problems early relative to non-

foster youth. Researchers have shown 75% of foster youth perform below grade level

and have increased rates of disciplinary referrals and absences. More than 50% repeat at

least one school year and score 15 to 20 percentile points below non-foster youth in

statewide achievement tests (Emerson & Lovitt, 2003; Kools, 1999; Schubert, 2001).

Zetlin et al. (2005) discovered that foster youth had overall weaker cognitive abilities,

lower academic achievement, and lower standardized reading and mathematics

achievement test scores, and more often received special education or an Individual

Educational Plan (IEP). That is, while 12% of the general population receives special

education, somewhere between 25% and 52% of foster children are placed in special

education programs (Kools, 1999). Foster children reportedly need special education for

a variety of reasons, such as inadequate prior education, innate or acquired learning

disabilities, and emotional disturbances. Instability of placement may have also played a

role and this may exacerbate existing scholastic deficiencies. Some investigations have

revealed that as many as 50% of foster children transfer schools at least four times after

beginning formal education (Altshuer 1997; Eckenrode, Rowe, Laird, & Brathewaite,

1995; Emerson & Lovitt, 2003). Oosterman, Schuengel, Slot, Bullens, and Doreleijers’

(2007) study reported that former foster youth perceived their education to be negatively

affected by placement changes. Indeed, this study reported that 90% who resided in

foster care for over 9 years had up to 19 different placements. As stated above, frequent

6
residential shifts result in excessive placement of foster youth in special learning

programs to accommodate the educational needs identified in IEPs. However, it is

uncertain whether these programs actually improve academic performance and reduce

dropout rates (Zetlin et al., 2005), and whether such foster youth would benefit more

from additional support, such as that from tutoring and counseling (Berrick & Ayasse,

2005).

Social Support Solution

As mentioned previously, social support is a strong predictor of resiliency among

foster youth. Social support consists of various forms of communication (e.g.,

admiration, praise, reinforcement, and expressions of encouragement) that require

listening, understanding, acceptance, and empathy (emotional support) and may also

include instrumental support such as academic resources, feedback, and assistance

(instructional support; Vedder, Boekaerts, & Seegers, 2003). Social support has been

identified by several researchers to be a vital and influential component in confidence and

academic outcome (Bulstien, Chaves, Gallagher, Grossman, & Kenny, 2003; Rosenfeld

& Richman, 2003; Vedder et al., 2003). Stable and emotional bonds with adult

caregivers affect foster youth’s behavioral and emotional profiles, school attendance, and

peer social networks (Hyde & Kammerer, 2009). Successful former foster youth, in other

words those who have attended college, reported that people close to them provided

forms of social support that were most needed and helpful (Hass & Graydon, 2009).

Resiliency among foster youth seems to depend primarily on the bond between foster

youth and their primary caregiver and/or authority figure (Rodgers, 2007).

7
 Families are widely reported to be the most important source of support for

children (Rodgers, 2007; Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990; Vedder et al., 2003; Wall,

Covell, & Macintyre, 1999). Because foster youth are separated from their biological

families, both physically and emotionally, they often do not receive the support from

them. Without adequate support from the foster system, children who live with foster

families or in group home settings may not have the emotional and stable support needed

to succeed academically (McKeller, 1997). According to Vedder et al. (2003),

adolescents believe that adults within their network were responsible for providing a

cognitively and linguistically stimulating atmosphere. Social support was reported to be

a critical variable in determining their academic achievement (Bulstein et al., 2003). In

addition, Wall et al., (1999) found that social support from family had a significant and

direct effect on adolescents’ experiences at school. Specifically, family support was

found to affect patterns of school behavior and to facilitate learning. Several researchers

have found that students with significant family social support present greater scholastic

self-esteem (Rodgers, 2007; Sarason et al., 1990; Wall et al., 1999). Adolescents also

have reported that social support from their parents and teachers was necessary to

complete school assignments and to become engaged in academic pursuits (Vedder et al.,

2003). In addition, teacher and peer social support have positive effects on adolescents’

academics. It is certainly effective to provide a classroom, in which academic rigor and

intellectual challenge are accompanied by emotional and instructional support to meet the

challenge (Kumar & Hruda, 2001). Peers are reported to provide support in the

classroom when they assist with teacher interactions and school work or assist with

8
family issues (Hirsch, Engle-Levy, DuBois, & Hardesty, 1990). Without these forms of

social support, adolescents tend to exhibit increased school difficulties (Wall et al., 1999).

Gender Considerations

It has been well-documented that females are more likely to seek and receive

social support when they perceive they need it (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). This trend

for social bonding begins relatively early in adolescent females, resulting in more

intimate relationships than observed in adolescent males. When analyzing social

interactions, the researchers observed that females have the tendency to be more sensitive

to interpersonal relationships and develop more extensive social networks, which has a

positive effect on their overall mental and physical health compared to males (Belle,

1982; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). The overwhelming evidence is that females seek and

receive more social support, and this is also true where academic endeavors are

concerned; however, this is not to say that males do not also benefit from some forms of

social support (Vedder et al., 2003).

When considering the effects of gender differences in social support and

academic and professional success, researchers have found that females may benefit from

multiple sources of social support, such as their families, teachers, and peers. Whereas,

males reported that they benefit primarily from social support from their families (Wall et

al., 1999). In one study, Wall et al. (1999) sampled 260 male and female students to

investigate whether social support affects educational expectations and aspirations. The

results were that females who reported higher levels of social support from peers, family,

and teachers were more optimistic about future opportunity, and they had higher

9
expectations and aspirations for education relative to their male peers. It should also be

noted that when Miller and Byrnes (2001) queried 170 non-foster high school students,

and they found that older adolescent girls are generally more concerned with academic

goals than were older adolescent boys.

Foster Youth, Social Support, and Academic Success

Academic success may offset some of the negative outcomes of foster youth, as

stated previously. Social support is a moderator of confidence, and confidence is

expected to be a predictor of academic success, particularly for females (Flouri &

Buchanan, 2002). However, to the best of this investigators knowledge, no study has

directly investigated the gender-specific effects of social support on academic confidence

for female and male foster youth. Previous research has investigated the role of social

support in regards to academic achievement as recalled by former foster youth and non-

foster youth. According to a study by Lemon et al. (2005), 194 former foster youth, who

lived in Independent Living Programs (ILP) reported having received more information

about financial aid and tutoring, advice about college, and were more likely to decide to

attend college than non-ILP former foster youth (i.e., those residing in foster family

homes). However, neither ILP nor non-ILP former foster youth felt that the foster care

system prepared them well for college. Hass and Graydon’s (2009) retrospective study

identified 44 former foster youth who reported that faculty and staff members provided a

combination of personal support and practical advice, but only 19% reported that foster

families played a positive role in their lives. Research regarding foster youth and

academic confidence is relatively sparse, and much of what we know about factors

10
leading to academic confidence has come from non-foster youth. Wetterson et al. (2005)

revealed that perceptions of social support and academic self–efficacy predicted

academic commitment in 689 non-foster adolescents, which help determine their

academic confidence. In addition, Bulstein et al. (2003) reported that social support had

a positive impact on school performance and work success in 355 non-foster adolescents.

Purpose

The primary limitations shared by much of the research investigating the

relationship between social support and academic confidence in foster youth involve the

use of retrospective studies, which is notably prone to error. In other words, investigators

have relied on the recalled memories of former foster youth and non-foster youth

responses; they have not directly examined the effects of social support on academic

confidence among youth currently residing in foster care homes. It is this author’s

opinion that the well-documented retrieval and recalled errors that are likely associated

with retrospective studies (Hass & Graydon, 2009; Lemon et al., 2005) suggest that direct

investigation, rather than a recollection of past events, provide for more accurate data.

Therefore, the present investigation directly examined the differential impact of social

support on the academic confidence of adolescent males and females currently residing

with foster families. Rather than simply looking at self-reported grade point average,

academic confidence was assessed because it is reported to be a strong predictor of future

academic success (Gore, 2006; Midgley et al., 2000; Peetma, Hascher, Veen, & Roede,

2005; Sherer et al., 1982).

11
 I predicted a positive relationship between perceived social support and academic

confidence and further predicted that this would be particularly true for female foster

youth. The findings are discussed in the context of specific sources of social support.

12
 Methods

Participants

Three hundred surveys were mailed to transitional foster youth between the ages

of 15 to 18 years who were currently residing in foster care homes. Cohen’s (1988)

power analysis suggested that a minimum of 67 participants was needed to detect a

significant effect at the 0.05 level. The final participant sample for this experiment

included 82 transitional foster youth, 48 females, and 34 males. The mean age of the

participants was 16.71 years (SD = 0.81). Transitional foster youth taking prescribed

psychiatric medication were excluded from the study due to the potential for extraneous

negative impacts of the drugs on academics. An incentive consisting of a raffle entry to

win a $25 Walmart gift card was provided for completion of the survey.

Procedure

In this study, survey packets were sent to 300 male and female participants from

the San Joaquin County foster care transitional youth population (See Appendix A for

permission letter from San Joaquin County). Because foster children are wards of the

court, informed consent was provided by the county Deputy Director of San Joaquin

County Human Services. Assent was also obtained from each transitional foster youth

participant. The assent forms explained the purpose of the study and informed the

participants that upon completion of the survey that they would be eligible to enter into

the $25 Walmart gift card raffle (See Appendix B). They were told that their

participation would be entirely voluntary and that their responses would be confidential.

After the consent forms were completed, the remaining survey packet was completed.

13
The packet of questionnaires included instruments to assess academic confidence

[Academic Efficacy Scale (AES) and the School Investment Inventory (SII)] and social

support [Student Perceived Availability of Social Support Questionnaire (SPASSQ)]. A

demographic questionnaire was also included (see Appendix C for survey

questionnaires).

To maintain the confidentiality of the participants, questionnaires were sent by the

deputy director of San Joaquin County Human Services to the foster care homes in which

the transitional foster youth currently reside. A stamped return envelope was included

with the surveys for the participants to return the entire packet directly back to this

investigator.

Measures

The demographic portion of the questionnaire tracked the adolescents’ gender,

duration of placement, and prescribed medications. A series of questions regarding

academic achievement was also included in the demographic section. The questions

inquired if the foster youth had received information about the following; financial aid,

college opportunity, tutoring, time on homework, and college preparation classes. The

remaining portion of the survey packet included measures of academic confidence and

social support (as stated above).

Social Support

Social support was assessed with the Student Perceived Availability of Social

Support Questionnaire (SPASSQ) (Vedder et al., 2003), an 11-item, self-report survey

that assesses transitional foster youths’ perceptions of available instructional and

14
emotional social support from foster families, teachers, and peers. To address foster

youth, the social support source “parent” was changed to “foster parent.” Respondents

rated each item on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (hardly ever) to 4 (always) based on a

continuum. The SPASSQ was estimated to require 10 min to complete. The scores

range from a minimum of 11 points to a maximum of 44 points. The scale has construct

validity and an internal consistency that can range from 0.75 to 0.86.

Academic Confidence

There is no single instrument with which to assess academic confidence. In this

study, the two most often cited instruments were used: the Academic Efficacy Scale

(AES) and the School Investment Inventory (SII).

The Academic Efficacy Scale (AES) is a 5-item, 3-min self-report subscale from

the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (Midgley et al., 2000). The AES assessed

youths’ confidence in their ability (or competence) to succeed in their school work.

Participants rated items on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very true). The

scores range from a minimum of 5 points to a maximum of 25 points. The Cronbach

alpha is 0.78, based on non-foster high-school students.

The School Investment Inventory (as modified by; Peetma et al., 2005; Roede,

1989) measured foster youths’ intensity and perseverance in school. The School

Investment Inventory (SII) has two 14-item subscales called Attending School and

Homework in General, which may take 20 minutes to complete. Participants rated items

on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The scores can

range from a minimum of 28 points to a maximum of 140 points. The internal

15
consistency of four European countries varied on the two subscales. The coefficient

alpha for Attending School ranged from 0.80 to 0.88 and Homework in General ranged

from 0.75 to 0.83. For the purpose of this study, a few items had to be reworded for

clarity. For example, “At school, I keep my attention to school” was changed to “I pay

attention when I am in school.” All the assessments above were developed for a sixth-

grade reading-level competency.

16
 Results

It should first be reiterated that of the 300 surveys that were mailed out to

transitional foster youth, only 82 foster youth completed and returned the surveys by

mail. This 27% return of the surveys approximated the expected 30% response rate and

provided sufficient power to reveal a medium effect at the 0.05 level (Cohen, 1988).

Participants included 48 females and 34 males with a mean age of 16.71 (0.81)

years. There was no difference in age between males (M = 16.74, SD = 0.86) and

females (M = 16.69, SD = 0.78). The ethnic composition of participants was 37%

African American, 18% Caucasian, 33% Hispanic, and 12% mixed. Duration of

placement ranged from 1 month to over 48 months, with a mode placement duration

between 8-19 months.

As previously stated, there is no single established measure for academic

confidence; two documented instruments were used to assess this variable. The AES and

SII assessments served as indices of academic confidence (Midgley et al., 2000; Peetma

et al., 2005; Sherer et al., 1982). Based on 5-point scales, mean and standard deviation

scores on these measures were, AES and SII are 3.56 (1.15) and 3.09 (0.41), respectively.

It is worth mentioning that these scores are substantially lower than scores reported for

non-foster youth, whose mean scores have been reported to range from 3.90 – 4.90 across

the two measures (Peetma et al., 2005).

Academic Confidence and Self-Reported Grades

Academic confidence was used in this study because it has been reported to be

positively related to future academic performance (Gore, 2006; Midgley et al., 2000;

17
Peetma et al., 2005; Sherer et al., 1982); however, grade point average (GPA) has also

been used to predict future academic success in previous studies (Long, Monoi, Harper,

Knoblauch, & Murphy, 2007; Zajacova, Lynch, and Espenshade, 2005). As would be

expected, some researchers have reported academic confidence to be significantly and

positively related to GPA (Zajacova et al., 2005). The associations between self-reported

grades and performance on the two academic confidence measures were also examined in

this study. Findings were that significant associations were not found for self-reported

grades and the SII (r = -0.19) scores. Although, somewhat unexpected, these findings are

consistent with other previous reports for non-foster youth (Gore, 2006; Wassenaar,

1994). More unexpectedly, however, a significant negative correlation was found for

self-reported grades and AES (r = -0.54, p < 0.01), showing that as grades go up,

academic efficacy goes down (see Figure 1). This finding is inconsistent with previous

reports that have shown non-foster students who had higher academic efficacy also

reported higher GPA compared to students with lower academic efficacy (Long, et al.,

2007; Zajacova et al., 2005).

18
 30
Academic Efficacy Scores

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Self-Reported Grades

Figure 1. Scatterplot for the negative correlation between self-reported grades and

academic efficacy (r = -0.54, p < 0.01**).

19
 One possible explanation for this finding is that the grades reported by foster

youth were not accurate. Another could be that the foster youth’s grades did not reflect a

sense of competence. Given that many foster youth participate in alternative education

programs in which workload is reduced (e.g., special education programs) (Osgood,

Foster, & Courtney, 2010), I questioned whether and to what degree “effort” (e.g., hours

completing homework), would be a better measure of competence and would more likely

correspond with academic confidence. Further examination of the data revealed that 44%

of participants (n = 36) did not do homework, either because they did not receive

homework or because they simply choose not to do their homework. Therefore,

associations between academic effort or competence (in this case, hours spent doing

homework) and the two academic confidence measures were examined. Results

indicated a positive significant relationship for hours spent on homework and AES (r =

0.20, p < 0.05). However, no significant associations were found for hours spent on

homework and the SII (r = 0.05).

Social Support and Academic Confidence

My primary hypothesis was that perceived social support would predict academic

confidence. Linear regression analyses for overall social support and each of the two

measures, AES and SII were conducted to test this hypothesis. Results were that no

significant relationships were found for overall social support and SII (β = 0.16, p =

0.16). However, overall social support significantly predicted AES, R2 = 0.18, F(1,80) =

17.35, p < 0.001, 95% CI [2.01, 5.70], which accounts for 18% of the total variance in

AES (β = 0.42).

20
 The findings presented above are that social support predicts academic confidence

only when considering the measure of AES. Furthermore, the strongest relationship for

academic confidence and academic competence (i.e., hours of homework) was with AES

(r = 0.20, p < 0.05). Therefore, it was assumed that AES represented the best measure of

academic confidence, and this is consistent with previous research (Friedel, Cortina,

Midgley, & Turnerand, 2010; Midgley et al., 2000; Peetma et al., 2005). Therefore, the

remaining results in this study focused on the relationship of social support with AES.

Sources of Social Support

Because social support from families has been reported to be a strong predictor of

scholastic self-esteem for adolescents (Gore, 2006; Zajacova et al., 2005), the role of

specific sources of social support was also examined in this study. Results from

independent t-tests indicated that foster youth reported receiving the least amount of

social support from their foster parents (M = 2.36, SD = 0.92), and this was significantly

less support than that received from teachers (M = 2.70, SD = 0.80), t(81) = -0.310, p =

0.003 and from peers (M = 2.68, SD = 0.77), t(81) = -0.266, p = 0.009 (see Table 1).

21
Table 1. Average social support for overall, foster parent, teacher, and peer social

support (N = 82).

Predictors M SD

Overall Social Support 2.58 0.63

Foster Parent Social Support 2.36 0.92

Teacher Social Support 2.70* 0.80

Peer Social Support 2.68* 0.77

*Indicates significant differences relative to Foster Parent Social Support (p < 0.05).

Additional linear regression analyses were also conducted to assess the

relationship between specific sources of social support and AES. Results revealed that in

addition to overall social support, support from teachers and peers were also significant

predictors of AES (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). The relationship between each

of the social support dimensions and AES is shown in Table 2, and as can be seen, the

strongest associations were for AES and social support from teachers and peers. The

relationship for foster parents and AES was not significant (p = 0.052). It should be

noted that analyses were performed for the other measure of academic confidence (i.e.,

SII) and social support. Results were that no significant associations were found for

overall social support or any of the social support dimensions.

22
Table 2. Linear regression analyses of overall social support, foster parent social support,

teacher social support, and peer social support in predicting academic efficacy (N = 82).

Predictors β t R R2 95% CI

Overall Social Support 0.42 4.15*** 0.43 0.18 [2.01, 5.70]

Foster Parent Social

Support 0.23 1.97 0.23 0.05 [-0.01, 2.81]

Teacher Social Support 0.41 3.93*** 0.41 0.17 [1.45, 4.42]

Peer Social Support 0.35 3.14** 0.34 0.11 [0.96, 4.26]

Note . CI = confidence intervals. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Social Support Gender Differences and Academic Confidence

Past research has reported that males and females differentially seek, receive and

benefit from social support. A primary prediction in this study was that females would

benefit more from social support (Belle, 1982; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). The amount

of perceived social support for male and female foster youth was first determined using

independent t-tests. Inconsistent with previous findings with non-foster youth, results

from this study indicate that male foster youth report receiving significantly more overall

social support than female foster youth (M = 2.82, SD = 0.59 and M = 2.41, SD = 0.61,

respectively), t(80) = 3.03, p = 0.003. Regarding the specific forms of social support and

gender, males reported receiving more support from foster parents (M = 2.64, SD = 0.84)

relative to females (M = 2.15, SD = 0.93), t(80) = 2.49, p = 0.015, and males (M = 2.94,

SD = 0.62) also had significantly higher scores than females (M = 2.49, SD = 0.81) in

relation to peer social support, t(80) = 2.78, p = 0.007. The amount of social support

23
reportedly provided by teachers did not differ significantly for males (M = 2.86, SD =

0.70) and females (M = 2.59, SD = 0.85), t(80) = 1.48, p = 0.143.

A hierarchical regression analysis was computed to investigate the role of gender

as a moderating variable for social support and AES. Findings were that there is an

interaction for gender and overall social support in relation to AES, R2 = 0.23, ΔR2 =

0.05, F(3,78) = 7.78, p = 0.031, 95% CI [0.39, 8.18], which is 23% of the total variance

(β = 0.96). Additional linear regression analyses determined that the association of social

support and AES is significant only for female foster youth (R2 = 0.30, F(1,46) = 19.11,

p < 0.001, 95% CI [2.38, 14.70]), which accounts for 30% of the variance (β = 0.54),

compared to male foster youth (β = 0.19, p = 0.283) (see Figure 2).

25

20
Academic Efficacy

15
Males
Females
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Overall Social Support

Figure 2. Overall social support significantly predicts academic efficacy for females

compared to male foster youth (p < 0.001).

24
Sources of Social Support, Gender, and Academic Confidence

Hierarchical regression analyses were utilized to examine the relationship

between each social support dimension (foster parent, teacher, and peer) and academic

confidence with gender as a moderating variable. Results revealed that foster parent

social support has a statistically significant interaction with gender in relation to AES, R2

= 0.10, ΔR2 = 0.05, F(3,78) = 2.90, p = 0.043, 95% CI [0.09, 5.84]. This interaction

between gender and foster parent social support accounts for 10% of the variance in AES

(β = 0.66). In addition, linear regression analyses confirmed that foster parent social

support was more beneficial to female foster youth’s academic confidence, R2 = 0.13,

F(1,46) = 6.69, p = 0.013, 95% CI [0.55, 4.41], which accounts for 13% of the variance

(β = 0.36), compared to male foster youth (β = -0.09, p = 0.613) (see Figure 3).

25
 25

20
Academic Efficacy

15
Males
10 Females

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Foster Parent Social Support

Figure 3. Foster parent social support significantly predicts academic efficacy for

females compared to male foster youth (p < 0 .01*).

Regarding other sources of social support, hierarchical regression analyses

indicate that teacher social support contributes 17% of the total variance in AES (β =

0.41), indicating that social support from teachers significantly predicts academic

confidence, R2 = 0.17, F(2,79) = 7.96, p = 0.001, 95% CI [-2.44, 2.35]. A main effect for

peer social support and AES was also found (β = 0.35), which accounts for 12% of the

total variance, R2 = 0.12, F(2,79) = 5.13, p = 0.008, 95% CI [-2.17, 2.93]. However, a

significant interaction effect with gender was not observed. Gender does not

significantly interact with either teacher support, (β = 0.58, p = 0.149) or peer support, (β

= -0.18, p = 0.682) when predicting AES.

26
 Discussion

Social support has been identified as an essential and prominent component in

confidence and academic outcomes in non-foster youth (Bulstien et al., 2003; Rosenfeld

& Richman, 2003; Vedder et al., 2003). In addition, social support has been recognized

as a strong predictor of resiliency among former foster youth in relation to their

academics (Rodgers, 2007). The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of

social support on academic confidence in male and female youth currently residing in

foster homes.

For the most part, research has shown that social support positively predicts

academic confidence in non-foster and former foster youth (Bulstien et al., 2003; Hass &

Graydon, 2009; Kortering & Brazeil, 2008; Rodgers, 2007; Vedder et al., 2003).

However, previous studies have not directly examined the relationship of social support

on academic confidence for youth currently residing in foster homes. The present study

was conducted to determine whether social support has a positive relationship with the

academic confidence of foster youth. Furthermore, because females are reported to seek,

receive, and benefit from social support relative to males (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974;

Wall et al., 1999), this investigator predicted that social support would be a particularly

strong predictor of academic confidence for female foster youth, compared to male foster

youth.

Academic success involves much more than just grades and standardized test

scores, and this is particularly true for non-traditional students such as the foster youth. It

is this author’s belief that research should include other important dimensions of

27
academic outcomes, such as academic confidence, which has been reported to predict

future academic success. As there is no one indicator of academic confidence, this study

initially examined the two most prominent measures of academic confidence (i.e., AES

and SII) as predictors of future academic success. However, results ultimately focused

on one measure, AES. AES has been previously reported to be a particularly strong

indicator of academic confidence in non-foster student populations, and in this study, it

was the only measure that had a significant association with academic effort, another

likely indicator of sense of competence. AES was also the only measure of academic

confidence that was associated with social support.

Although SII has been used to assess academic confidence for non-foster student

populations, it may have been less accurate when assessing the academic confidence of

foster youth. The SII measures school habits, which includes survey items such as, “I

have no trouble with going to school.” Responses to questions such as these may not be

accurate or appropriate when querying foster youth students, particularly when

considering that multiple and transient placements would clearly impact school

engagement and study habits (Gore, 2006; Rosenfeld & Richman, 2003).

The AES, in contrast, was designed to assess youth’s confidence in their ability to

succeed in their school work. Questions in this survey included items such as, “Even if

the work is hard, I can learn it,” and items such as these reportedly measure perseverance

in the face of academic challenge. Responses to such questions may have been less

affected by unstable foster home placements.

28
 As stated above, overall social support was found to be a positive predictor of

academic confidence as determined by the AES responses, and this is consistent with this

study’s primary hypothesis. The second hypothesis was also supported, and that was that

social support would greatly impact academic confidence for female foster youth, a

prediction based on previous research (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Wall et al., 1999). It is

interesting to note, however, that even though overall social support did not predict

academic confidence for male foster youth, males reported receiving significantly more

overall social support than females, and this is not consistent with findings with non-

foster youth males (Vedder et al., 2003). This finding may have been due to the fact that

male foster youth seek overall social support for a variety of different reasons that do not

include academic confidence or achievement such as, esteem, belonging, and attachment.

Social support may also have a positive effect on male foster youth well-being and can

decrease the intensity of stress during difficult times and life altering transitions such as

those commonly experienced by male foster youth (Mendez, 2008).

Unrelated to the hypotheses of this study, specific sources of social support were

also examined. Family social support and parental expectations have been purported to

be particularly strong influences of academic achievement. Given past reports that the

bond between foster youth and their primary caregiver and/or authority figure determine

resiliency (Rodgers, 2007), this variable was also examined. Social support dimensions

were broken down to examine the effects of social support from foster parents, teachers,

and peers on foster youth academic confidence (i.e., AES). Findings were that teacher

and peer social support were positive predictors of AES in foster youth, and there was no

29
significant difference between males and females. However, foster parent social support

predicted academic confidence only for female foster youth. These findings support

previous research with non-foster youth which suggested that females benefit from social

support from multiple sources in relation to their academics (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974;

Wall et al., 1999). It also suggests that regardless of the type of family, parental guidance

and involvement are vital for a female’s ability to academically succeed (Sarason et al.,

1990).

Present findings, however, are inconsistent with previous reports that male non-

foster youth benefit from specifically family social support (Vedder et al., 2003). In this

study, male foster youth did not benefit from foster parent social support in relation to

their academic confidence. One possible explanation concerns the type of social support

provided to foster youth. Some foster parents are not well equipped to provide

informational support regarding academics (Kumar & Hruda, 2001), and foster parents

may differ in their level of expertise to help their foster youth make informed decisions

about their academic future (Kumar & Hruda, 2001). This form of instrumental social

support is most often sought by males, and may have been critical in predicting AES in

male foster youth.

Lastly, the unexpected finding for a negative correlation between self-reported

grades and AES merits some discussion. Based on previous research, it was expected

that competence in school work would be reflected in academic grades and that academic

confidence would therefore be strongly associated with self-reported grades.

Interestingly, there were no associations between self-reported grades and SII. Moreover,

30
the relationship between self-reported grades and AES was significantly and inversely

related, that is, the higher the grades, the less confident, (i.e., the lower the AES score), a

finding that is inconsistent with previous research (Long et al., 2007; Zajacova et al.,

2005). Although there are multiple possible explanations for this result I questioned the

assumption that self-reported grades reflected a sense of competence, a question that has

been previously raised by others (Gore, 2006; Wassenaar, 1994). This question becomes

even more salient when considering the foster youth population. Foster youth are

typically over-represented in alternative education (continuation school) and special

education programs (Kools, 1999; Velasco et al., 2008), and these programs are reported

to involve a less rigorous curriculum with lower academic standards (Kumar & Hruda,

2001; McLaughlin, Atukpawn, & Williamson, 2008). Therefore, foster youth may have

been getting good grades with little effort, explaining the lack of correlation between self-

reported grades and academic confidence. Whether or not the participants in the present

study were involved in these types of academic programs was not tracked and remains

unknown. However, I was able to examine whether the effort put into academic

achievements or amount of time spent on homework corresponded with academic

confidence. It is interesting to note that the AES positively correlated with hours spent

on homework. In other words, foster youth who took the initiative to do their homework

showed an increase in academic confidence.

Limitations

This study contains limitations related to sample size, geographic location, and

the questionnaires that were used. Even though the sample size (N = 82) was determined

31
to be sufficient to reveal a medium effect (Cohen, 1988), it consisted largely of

underrepresented ethnic minorities and may not have been representative of the foster

care population in other parts of the country. The questionnaires that were utilized in this

study reported reliability and validity measures that were sufficient, as determined by

non-foster populations. However, as was discussed in the context of the SII, this measure

might not have been appropriate for foster youth. Also, the demographic questions did

not inquire about the type of school (traditional, alternative, or home school) that the

foster youth are currently attending, which could have been an explanation for the

significant negative correlation between self-reported grades and academic confidence.

Finally, this study did not carefully track number and duration of placements. Given that

stability of foster placement plays a major role in the education quality and consistency as

well as the degree of support received by foster families, this study was unable to

determine the degree to which foster home placements played a role in this study’s

findings.

Implications for Further Research

This study was valuable in demonstrating the importance of social support on

academic confidence in transitional foster youth and in demonstrating that female foster

youth, just like females in general, benefit more than males from social support in

relation to their academics. This study is the first of its kind to specifically receive

responses from transitional foster youth who are currently residing in foster care

regarding their social support and academic confidence. This research provided a unique

contribution to the existing literature on the relationship between social support and

32
academic confidence among foster youth, and it may have provided some insight into the

measure that would be most appropriate in determining academic confidence in foster

youth. In the future, a research design that includes foster youth’s grades from school

records, examining if academic confidence translates to academic performance, the

identification of the type of school youth are attending (traditional school vs. alternative

school), and the measurement of the type of social support would greatly enhance the

overall findings. Lastly, this research on the relationship between foster youth’s social

support and academic confidence may lead to changes within foster care agencies, such

that academic achievement would be underscored when defining foster parents roles and

duties.

33
 References

Alan Guttmacher Institute, AGI, (1999). Teenage pregnancy: Overall trends and
state-by-state information. New York, NY: Author.

Altshuler, S. J. (1997). A reveille for school social workers: Children in foster care need
our help. Social work in Education, 19 (2), 121-128. Retrieved May 9, 2007,
from http://weblinks3.epnet.com/ citation.asp

Arnett, J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480.

Belle, D. (1982). Lives in stress; women and depression. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Corporation.

Berrick, J. D., & Ayasse, R. H. (2005). Improving educational services for foster youth
living in group homes: An analysis of interagency collaboration. California
Social Work Education Center. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley,
Retrieved August 13, 2010, from http://www.csulb.edu

Brown, J. D., & Bednar, L. M. (2006). Foster parent perceptions of placement

breakdown. Children and Youth Services Review, 28 (12), 1497-1511.
Retrieved June 16, 2009, from doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.03.004

Bulstein, D. L., Kenny, M. E., Chaves, A., Grossman, J. M., & Gallagher, L. A., (2003).
The role of perceived barriers and relational support in the educational and
vocational lives of urban high school students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 50 (2), 142-155. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from doi:
10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.142

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eckenrode, J., Rowe, E., Laird, M., & Brathewaite, J. (1995). Mobility as a mediator of
the effects of child mistreatment on academic performance. Child Development,
66, 1130-1142.

Emerson, J., & Lovitt, T. (2003). The educational plight of foster children in schools and
what can be done about it. Remedial & Special Education, 24 (4), 199-203.
Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http:0infotrac.galegroup.com

34
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2002). The role of work related skills and career role
models in adolescents career maturity. The Career Development Quarterly, 51
(1), 36-43.

Friedel, J. M., Cortina, K. S., Turner, J.C., & Midgley, C. (2010). Changes in efficacy
beliefs in mathematics across the transition to middle school: Examining the
effects of perceived teacher and parent goal emphases Journal of Educational
Psychology 102 (1), 102–114. Retrieved June 5, 2010, from doi:
10.1037/a0017590

Furstenberg F. F., Rumbaut, R. G., & Settersten, R. A. (2005). On the frontier of

adulthood emerging themes and new directions. Illinois, CH: University of
Chicago Press.

Geenen, S., & Powers, L. E. (2007). Tomorrow is another problem: the experience of
youth in foster care during their transition to adulthood. Children and Youth
Services Review, 29(8), 1085-1101.

Gitelson, I. B., & McDermott, D. (2006). Parents and their young adult children:
Transitions to adulthood. Child Welfare Journal, 85(5), 853-866.

Gore, P. A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two

incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1), 92–115.
Retrieved August 13, 2010, from doi: 10.1177/1069072705281367

Hass, M., & Graydon, K. (2009). Sources of resiliency among successful foster youth.
Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 457-463. Retrieved November 16, 2008,
from doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.10.001

Hirsch, B. J., Engle-Levy, A., DuBois, D. L., & Hardesty, P. H. (1990). Traditional
views of social support and their impact on assessment. In B. R. Sarason, I. G.
Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social Support: An Interactional View. New
York: John Wiley. 367-394.

Hyde, J., & Kammerer, N. (2009). Adolescents’ perspective on placement moves and
congregate settings: complex and cumulative instabilities in out-of-home care.
Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 265-273. Retrieved August 16, 2008,
from doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.07.019

Kelly, K. (2000). The education crisis for children in the California Juvenile Court
System. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 27, 757-774. Retrieved
February 16, 2007, from http:web.lexis.com/universe/document

35
Kools, S. M. (1997). Adolescent identity development in foster care. Family Relations,
46(3), 263-271.

Kools, S. M. (1999). Self protection in adolescents in foster care. Journal of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 12(4), 139-147.

Kortering, L., & Braziel, P. (2008). Engaging youth in school and learning: The
emerging key to success and completion. Psychology in Schools, 45(5), 461-465.

Kumar, R. & Hruda, L. Z. (2001). “What do I want to be when I grow up?” Role of
parent and teacher support in enhancing students’ academic confidence and
educational expectations. American Educational Research Association:
University of Michigan. Retrieved August 18, 2010, from http://www.umich.edu

Long, J. F., Monoi, S., Harper, B., Knoblauch, D., & Murphy, P. K. (2007). Academic
motivation and achievement among urban adolescents. Urban Education, 45(3),
196-222. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from doi: 10.1177/0042085907300447

Lemon, K., Hines, A. M., & Merdinger, J. (2005). From foster care to young
adulthood. The role of independent living programs in supporting successful
transitions. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 251-270. Retrieved
December 12, 2007, from doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.09.005

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press. 393-627.

McKeller, N. (1997). Foster homes. In Bear, G. G., Minke, K. M. & Thomas, A.

(Eds.), Children’s needs II: Development, problems and alternatives.
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. 697-706.

McLaughlin, M., Atukpawu, G., & Williamson, D. (2008). Alternative education options
in California: A view from counties and districts. Stanford University.

McMillian, C. J., & Tucker, J. (1999). The status of older adolescents at exit from out of
home care. Child Welfare, 78, 339-362.

Mendez, S. L. (2008). Support networks and the effects they have on foster youth’s
academic success. Thesis: California State University, Long Beach, CA.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hurda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E.,
…Urdan, T. (2000). The multi-dimensional manual for the patterns of adaptive
learning survey. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan. Retrieved
March 8, 2007, from http://www.umich.edu~pals

36
Miller D. C. & Byrnes, J. P. (2001). To achieve or not to achieve: a self-regulation
perspective on adolescents’ academic decision making. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(4), 677-685. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from doi:10.1037//0022

Oosterman, M., Schuengel, C., Slot, N. W., Bullens, R. A. R., & Doreleijers, T. A. H.
(2007). Disruptions in foster care: a review and meta-analysis.
Children and Youth Services Review, 20(1), 53-76.

Osgood, D. W., Foster, E. M., & Courtney, M. E. (2010). Vulnerable populations and
the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children 20(1). Retrieved October 22,
2010, from http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals

Peetsma, T., Hascher, T., Veen, I., & Roede, E. (2005). Relations between adolescents
self- evaluations, time perspectives, motivation for school, and their
achievement in different countries at different ages. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 20(3), 209-225.

Rosenfeld, L. B., & Richman, J. M. (2003). Social support and educational confidence
for students in out of home care. Children and Schools, 25(2), 69-86.

Roede, E. (1989). Explaining student investment: An investigation of high school of

students’ retrospective accounts of their investment in school. Dissertation.
University Amsterdam. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http:/www.sco-
kohnstamminstituut.uva.nl

Rodgers, Y. H. (2007). Adolescents adjusting to a group environment: A residential care

model of re-organizing attachment behavior and building resiliency. Children
and Youth Services, 29, 1131-1141.

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Social support: The search for
theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 133-147.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs B., & Rogers,
R. W. (1982). Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.

Shubert, R. (2001). Hard numbers may aid students in foster care. Seattle Post-
Intelligence Reporter 1. Seattle Post – Intelligencer, B2.

Simms, M., Dubowitz, H., & Szilagyi, M. (2000). Health care needs of
children in the foster care system. Pediatrics, 106(4), 909.

37
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Children’s Bureau
(2001). Adoption and foster care analysis and reporting system. Washington,
DC: Author.

Vacca, J. S. (2006). Foster children need to learn how to read. Relational Child and
Youth Care Practice, 19(4).

Vacca, J. S. (2008). Breaking the cycle of academic failure for foster children: what can
schools do to help? Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1081-1087.
Retrieved December 12, 2007 from doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.02.003

Vedder, P., Boekaerts, M., & Seegers, G., (2003). Perceived social support and
wellbeing in school; role of student’s ethnicity. Journal of Youth and
Adolescents, 34(3). 269-278. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from
doi:10.1007/S10964-005-4313-4

Velasco, J. R., Austin, G., Dixon, D., Johnson, J., McLaughlin, M., & Perez, L. (2008).
Alternative education options: A descriptive study of California continuation high
schools. John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Community. 1-12
Retrieved March 6, 2008, from http://openarchive.stanford.edu/bitstream/10408

Wall, J., Covell, K., & Macintyre, P. D. (1999). Implications of social support for
adolescents’ education and career aspirations. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Science, 31 (2), 63-71.

Wassenaar, C. M. V. (1994). The relationship between academic motivation and

academic achievement of selected first time students at Grand View college.
Thesis: Drake University, Des Moines, IA.

Wetterson, K. B., Guilimino, A., Herrick, C. G., Hunter, P. J., Kim, G.Y., Jagow, D.,
…McCormick, J. (2005). Predicting educational and vocational attitudes among
rural high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 658-663.
Retrieved May 9, 2008, from doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.658

Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., Espenshade, J. L. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic
success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677-706.
Retrieved August 13, 2010, from doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-4139

Zetlin A.G., Weinberg L., & Kimm, C. (2003). Are the educational needs of children in
foster care being addressed? Children and Schools, 25, 105-119.

38
Zetlin A.G., Weinberg L., & Kimm, C. (2004). Improving education outcomes for
children in foster care: Intervention by an education liaison. Journal of Education
for Students at Risk, 9(4), 421-429.

Zetlin A.G., Weinberg L., & Kimm, C. (2005). Helping social workers adder the
educational needs of foster children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 811-823.
Retrieved December 12, 2007, from doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.12.2009

39
 Appendices

Appendix A: Permission Letter

May 14, 2008 P.O. Box 201056 102 South San Joaquin Street Stockton, CA 95201-3006

Tel (209) 468-1000

CalWORKS
Children’s Services
Aging and Community Services
Mary Graham Children’s Shelter
San Jose State University
Master of Art Program-
Experimental Psychology

To Whom It May Concern,

The San Joaquin County Human Service Agency has given Carolyn Gillard, a graduate student in the
Masters of Arts Program- Experimental Psychology, permission to submit and receive back a questionnaire
from foster children. We are supportive of Ms. Gillard’s thesis research on the topic of the impact of social
support and type of foster care placement in academic outcomes in transitional foster youth.

We requested that Ms. Gillard provide us with a cover letter to foster youth, a questionnaire, and a self
addressed and stamped return envelope inside each stamped mailing envelope. We will then place mailing
labels on each envelope and place each packet in the mail. This will protect the confidentiality of each
foster child. A court order is not required for this process to occur, as no confidential information is being
provided to Ms. Gillard.

It is essential that the confidentiality of the foster youth not be compromised.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Very Truly Yours,

David Erb
Deputy Director- Children’s Services

DE: jlc
(209)468-1190
derb@co.san-joaquin.ca.us

40
 Appendix B: Assent Form for Child Participants

Responsible Investigator: Carolyn Gillard

Title of Protocol: Social Support and Academic Confidence

1. You have been asked to participate in a research study investigating social support in
relation to your academic confidence.

2. You will be asked to provide general demographic and background information

about yourself, and to complete a survey that measures your perceived social
support, sense of personal and academic mastery, and school investment.

3. Although the results of this study may be published, no information that could
identify you or your family will be included.

4. Minimal risk due to questions about your prescribed medication and social support
you receive from your foster parent(s), but the risks will not cause discomfort or
affect you.

5. For your participation in this study by completing the survey, you will be entered
into a $25 Walmart gift certificate raffle. Your participation can assist with
developing transitional foster youth programs that will promote higher education
(vocational schools and college) for future foster youth.

6. Questions about this research may be addressed to Carolyn Gillard (209) 992-1684
or Dr. Cheryl Chancellor-Freeland (408) 924-5645. Complaints about the research
may be presented to Dr. Sheila Bienenfeld, Chair of Psychology, at (408) 924-5600.
Questions about a research subjects’ rights, or research-related injury may be
presented to Pamela Stacks, Ph.D., Associate Vice President, Graduate Studies and
Research, at (408) 924-2480.

7. No service of any kind, to which you are otherwise entitled, will be lost or
jeopardized if you choose to “not participate” in the study.

8. Your consent to participate is being given voluntarily. You may refuse participation
in the entire study or in any part of the study. You have the right to not answer
questions you do not wish to answer. If you participate in the study, you are free to
withdraw at any time without any negative effect on your relations with San Jose
State University or with any other participating institutions or agencies. You also
have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

Initial _______

41
Your agreement to participate is indicated by you completing and returning the attached
survey. Please keep this letter for your records.

Thank You

_____________________________ ____________

Carolyn Gillard
Investigator’s Signature Date

42
 Appendix C: Questionnaire

Fill in the blanks and the answer that applies to you.

Demographics
Age: ______

Ethnicity: _____________________

Gender: Male Female

Duration of placement: Short term (1 -8 months)

Moderate term (19 – 48 months)
Long Term (over 48 months)
What prescribed medications are you
taking?__________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Which of the following best describes your grades so far in high school?
90-100 = A.......1
80-89 = B.......2
70-79 = C.......3
60-69 = D…...4
Below 60……..5

Approximately what is the number of hours you spend on homework a week?

No homework is ever assigned………. 1
I have homework but do not do it……. 2
Less than 5 hours a week……….......... 3
Between 5 and 10 hours a week……... 4
More than 10 hours a week………….. 5

Do you have a tutor? (circle one) Yes No

Are you attending college preparation classes? (circle one) Yes No

Whatever your plans, do you believe you have the ability to complete college?
Yes, definitely 1
Yes, probably 2
Not Sure 3
I doubt it 4
Definitely Not 5

Has anyone told you about financial aid? (circle one) Yes No
Have you ever received advice about college? (circle one) Yes No

43
Circle an answer for each social support person (hardly ever = 1 lowest, always = 4
highest).

Social Support
Student Perceived Availability of Social Support Questionnaire (SPASSQ)
When you don’t understand a lesson, who can you count on to explain it to you?
Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

If you received a failing grade, when you thought your work was satisfactory, whom
could you ask for an explanation of your grade?
Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

Who encourages you when your performance is weaker than usual?

Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

When you need advice, whom can you turn to?

Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

When you are not able to complete your schoolwork, whom can you ask for help?
Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

Whom can you go to with your personal problems?

Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

Who shows that he or she is happy when you perform well?

Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

44
 Who is prepared to help you when you have problems with your homework?
Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

When you just can’t get something right, who can you count on to show how it’s done?
Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

Who shares your feelings when you are happy?

Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

Who shares your feelings when you are sad?

Foster Parent ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Teacher ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always
Peer ○ hardly ever ○ sometimes never ○ often ○ always

Circle an answer for each item (1 the lowest, 5 the highest)

Academic Confidence
Not at all True Somewhat True Very True
Academic Efficacy Scale (AES)
I am certain I can master the skills taught in class this year…………………. 1 2 3 4 5
I am certain I can figure out how to do the most difficult class work……….. 1 2 3 4 5
I can do almost all the work in class if I don’t give up………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
Even if the work is hard, I can learn it……………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
I can do even the hardest work in my class if I try…………………………... 1 2 3 4 5

45